Bombay High Court

AKASH ULHAS KEDAREversusTHE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Decided: 11 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The petition is not maintainable because the petitioner lacks locus standi as he is not directly affected by the explosive storage.

Summary

The petitioner, a resident of Nashik, challenged a No Objection Certificate issued to Kalyan Enterprises for setting up a high explosive storage facility within 700 metres of Borivali village, alleging a hazard to his village. The Court observed that the petitioner is not a resident of Borivali and failed to demonstrate any personal interest or direct injury from the facility. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner lacks locus standi to file the writ in his individual capacity. The Court noted that such a matter could be pursued as a public interest litigation, but not as a private petition. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable.

Issues considered

Does the petitioner have locus standi to challenge the NOC for the explosive storage facility in his individual capacity?
Is the writ petition maintainable when the petitioner is not directly affected by the alleged hazard?

Subjects

locus standi
public interest litigation
writ petition
explosive storage
NOC
maintainability

Judgment

                                                                     08-WP-16770-2024.DOC




                                                                                 Rekha Patil

                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                  WRIT PETITION NO. 16770 OF 2024
                   Akash Ulhas Kedare                                       …Petitioner
                        Versus
                   The Union of India and Ors.                           …Respondents


                   Mr. Lokesh Zade, for the Petitioner.
                   Mr. Y. S. Bhate, for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
                   Mr. A. R. Deolekar, AGP, for the Respondent-State.


                                        CORAM:        SUMAN SHYAM &
                                                      ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.
                                        DATED:        11th AUGUST, 2026.
                   PC:-


                   1.     The Writ Petitioner herein is a resident of Sogras Shirsane,
                   District – Nashik. Assailing the NOC issued by the Respondent No.3
                   in favour of the Respondent No.5-M/s, Kalyan Enterprises to set up
                   a High Explosive Storage Maxine within the radius of 2 kilometers
                   of the Gavthan of Borivali, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

                   2.     According to the Petitioner, although, the permissible range
                   is atleast 2 kilometers, yet, the Explosive Storage Maxine has been
                   established by the Respondent No.5 within 700 meter range of the
                   village, thus, causing serious hazard to the inhabitants of the said
                   village. As such, a prayer has been made to cancel the NOC of
                   Explosives Licence on such count.
REKHA
PRAKASH
PATIL
Digitally signed
by REKHA
PRAKASH PATIL
Date: 2026.08.12
18:41:55 +0530




                                                 Page 1 of 2
                                                 08-WP-16770-2024.DOC




3.    After examining the material on record, we find that the
Petitioner is a resident of Nashik falling in Nashik District, but he
is complaining about the Explosive Storage Maxine, which has
been set up at Borivali Village, which is a part of Thane District.
The Petitioner has failed to show us as to in what manner, he is
concerned with the storage system set up in a village in Borivali.
The Petitioner cannot maintain any grievance, at the individual
level, in respect of the Explosive Storage Maxine at Borivali since
he is not a resident of Borivali Village. On a pointed query made
by this Court to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner on the above
issue, no satisfactory answer could be given by him.

4.    If the present Petition was registered as a Public Interest
Litigation (‘PIL’), then the matter would have been entirely
different. However, since the Petitioner has filed the Writ Petition
in his individual capacity, raising a grievance which does not
directly relate to him, we are of the view that the Writ Petitioner
does not have the locus standi to institute this Writ Petition. As
such, the Writ Petition is held to be not maintainable in law as well
as the facts of this Case. The same is accordingly dismissed.

5.    The Petitioner would, however, be at liberty to institute any
other proceeding including a PIL, on the above subject, in
accordance with law, if so advised.



(ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.)                         (SUMAN SHYAM, J.)
                                                                        {




                              Page 2 of 2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…